Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Babelfish: SQL Server-to-Postgres Translation Layer

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Babelfish: SQL Server-to-Postgres Translation Layer

#111

Post by ed25519FUUU »

sqlserver1 wrote: post #55
joshuaellinger wrote: post #46

This is great. I suspect that I have exactly the right use case for this. The two main issues with running SQL Server are (1) you have to license all the cores on a system and (2) the standard license only recognizes up to 64GB RAM. So I actually wound up buying a 3GHz single-socket system for around $10K to save $20K on the SQL license. With this, I can move a couple of the big DBs to another system that has 32 Core…

(2) is not accurate. SQL Server Standard Edition supports up to 128 GB RAM https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/sql-server/editions-and...

For the highest socket license.

Re: Babelfish: SQL Server-to-Postgres Translation Layer

#112

Post by briffle »

jnsie wrote: post #30
bdcravens wrote: post #11

As someone who has been fighting with a SQL Server to Postgresql conversion this sounds AMAZING. Too bad it won't be available before my conversion is complete (and if it is, that's an even sadder proposition)

Out of curiosity: besides cost, are there other significant reasons that drive your desire to switch?

I came from Oracle, not SQL Server, but the largest benefit to me, is at a previous job, I ran Oracle Standard (that cost About $25k for our 2 core servers) and one of the critical limitations is you can't build an index without locking the table. The ability to do it 'online' was an enterprise only feature (that would have cost about $700k on our hardware), so we were unable to do any index changes on our tables, since it would take 10-12 hours to rebuild some key tables, and we couldn't block all our transactions for that long. SQL server also makes that an enterprise only feature.

PostgreSQL has the native ability to do that. There are lots of other benefits, but that is the first that comes to mind.

When they come out with Babelfish for Oracle, then stuff is going to get crazy. EnterpriseDB has some limits to its functionality, and its cost is pretty high.

Re: Babelfish: SQL Server-to-Postgres Translation Layer

#113

Post by topspin »

xet7 wrote: post #99
topspin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS hasn't yet ruled on Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. One imagines that if Oracle prevails in some demonstrative manner they may very well believe their flavor of SQL is a software interface protected by copywrite. So will all the other 'software interface' owners of the world.

So if Oracle wins, can AWS sue Oracle for Oracle having implemented AWS S3 API ? https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/Object/Task...

AWS can probably sue most of the valley for that one.

Re: Babelfish: SQL Server-to-Postgres Translation Layer

#114

Post by jcriddle4 »

pletnes wrote: post #26
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #16

Don't hate me for it, but I'd like this for MySQL to postgres too. At least as a stepping stone. Use case: some of my SQL syntax depends on MySQL but I realize I made a poor life choice and would rather have transactional DDL and a myriad of better features on postgres.

For SQL server, AWS can save their customers money by cutting license cost (to MS). MySQL is already free so I don’t see how they can benefit from such a project.

If you have several thousand stored procs and triggers then having to not rewrite all of that is actually likely over a million in savings.

Re: Babelfish: SQL Server-to-Postgres Translation Layer

#115

Post by jen20 »

ksec wrote: post #104
pletnes wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For SQL server, AWS can save their customers money by cutting license cost (to MS). MySQL is already free so I don’t see how they can benefit from such a project.

>don’t see how they can benefit from such a project I thought there were bad blood between Oracle and Amazon?

In that case you'd expect to see it for Oracle proper instead of MySQL first, no?

Re: Babelfish: SQL Server-to-Postgres Translation Layer

#117

Post by rj0049 »

jen20 wrote: post #115
ksec wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>don’t see how they can benefit from such a project I thought there were bad blood between Oracle and Amazon?

In that case you'd expect to see it for Oracle proper instead of MySQL first, no?

The Oracle wire protocol contains a (copyrighted) haiku, so no one can reverse-engineer the Oracle wire protocol without infringing on Oracle's copyright.

Re: Babelfish: SQL Server-to-Postgres Translation Layer

#118

Post by nimatorabi »

briffle wrote: post #112
jnsie wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity: besides cost, are there other significant reasons that drive your desire to switch?

I came from Oracle, not SQL Server, but the largest benefit to me, is at a previous job, I ran Oracle Standard (that cost About $25k for our 2 core servers) and one of the critical limitations is you can't build an index without locking the table. The ability to do it 'online' was an enterprise only feature (that would have cost about $700k on our hardware), so we were unable to do any index changes on our tables, si…

liberatii.com has developed a similar tool like Babelfish for Oracle to SQL Server and PostgreSQL in case you're interested.
Post reply on HN